(Blogger’s note: The article is reprinted with the permission of John Greenewald, he of the Black Vault fame. The following has to do with Tom DeLonge and his project that is related to disclosure. I have written about this a couple of times and you can read about that here:
And while the next link doesn’t deal specifically with the topic at hand, it does provide something about the knowledge being published. It might provide some insight. You can read it here:
What sparked John’s comments was an article about Britain’s Roswell which is, of course, the new name for the Rendlesham Forest encounter. Not to leave any of you hanging, you can read that article here:
news/weird-news/690452/ Rendlesham-Forest-UFOs-Aliens- ET-Pentagon-Advanced- Aerospace-Threat- Identification-Program
Following is John’s take on all this.)
I love how the story is getting bigger and better every time it’s told.
Now, AATIP was a “massive” project – can I ask where this article
actually bases that off of? $22 million over
5 years is not “massive” and the whole point that Mr. Elizondo claims he
retired was because the DoD wasn’t taking it seriously.
|John Greenewald - Photo|
copyright by Kevin Randle.
Second, yet again, the name is published with the wrong title. I stand by the fact that the actual name is “Advanced AVIATION Threat Identification program” and not “Aerospace” which is often published and even said in interviews by Mr. Elizondo himself. I also have this IN WRITING from the Pentagon as proof.
That is not semantics, but rather goes to accuracy of reporting on the project, along with truly defining the SCOPE of the project. There is a big difference between Aviation and Aerospace, but I just can’t quite understand why no one is asking about the discrepancy, even since the one who ran the program seemingly has it wrong as well.
As this gets blown bigger and more out of proportion as the media fills in the blanks, I fear this lack of real reporting, the disregard of actual facts, and the reality no one is truly asking questions other than the softball ones asked over and over, it will come back and bite us. I have tried now for more than THREE MONTHS to do an interview with Mr. Elizondo to get his side. Not to be confrontational, but rather, be ACCURATE in my writing. I have been asked now many times to comment on radio, print and television, and have turned some down because it isn’t right for me to comment without getting responses from Mr. Elizondo.
However, after speaking many times with the PR agent from TTSA and she kept saying she was “trying” – I gave up. I feel more than THREE MONTHS, along with the offer to do it in whatever medium he wanted (live/in person, online video chat, recorded phone call or even in writing via email) is more than enough time. I am not Tucker Carlson from FoxNews, I get that, but you’d like they may want to address some of this to resources that can continue to give them positive coverage.
Others are now writing about FOIA extensions (which are perfectly normal and standard) and somehow reading into this as proof there is a massive cover-up. At the end of the day, there very well may be, but some are claiming and alleging a cover-up with zero evidence (but rather, citing standard FOIA response protocols as proof) and as each day passes when we have no updates from TTSA or real answers (yet) from multiple FOIA requests still open, the media (and SOME UFO researchers/bloggers) are just filling in the blanks with whatever assumption they’d like.
We need to get beyond that, and work together to find answers, not just make up the middle because we don’t have answers yet.
For those interested in a large, and growing, article profiling quite a few FOIA responses I have received along with addressing with detail some of these erroneous facts, I invite you to:
There are my two cents…